The Diana Inquest: October 2007 - April 2008

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

He surely doesn't think that buying a castle gives him the right to be the clan chief, does he?

I'm afraid he does. I have to give him his due for restoring Balnagowan, but just as his money can't buy him a British passport, it can't buy him a place in the Scottish aristocracy.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Yes, of course. I mean, if they hadn't been there, Henri Paul may have not driven so dangerously and there wouldn't have been any dead OR they might have had an accident because of his drunkenness and ended up killed too so it's very hard to deliberate of who was responsible ... .

Unfortunately and I don't mean this in a anti Diana way (), Diana must also bear some responsibility. By telling the press that she would have news for them soon, she fed the frenzy.

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Unfortunately and I don't mean this in a anti Diana way (), Diana must also bear some responsibility. By telling the press that she would have news for them soon, she fed the frenzy.

Absolutely and I know you're being very fair . I'm completely aware that she was responsible for some of the press harassment. Although, like Henri Paul, she's dead so it's tricky to make them pay their part of guiltiness.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Absolutely and I know you're being very fair . I'm completely aware that she was responsible for some of the press harassment. Although, like Henri Paul, she's dead so it's tricky to make them pay their part of guiltiness.

Sometimes its fairer and more just to everyone if we assign responsibility correctly to people that we can reasonably say were killed by their own actions rather than to lay blame for their deaths on an innocent party who is still living and can still suffer from unfair accusations. Of course no one wants to malign the dead unnecessarily; but to unfairly accuse the living to protect the reputation of the dead I think is worse.

The recent tragic deaths of the boys that were eaten by the tiger in the San Francisco zoo are the perfect example of that. Its tragic that the boys died but if they died by their own foolhardiness and by taunting a tiger then the zoo and the people who depend upon a job at the zoo for their livelihood shouldn't have to suffer too simply because the boys died and they are still living.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I'm afraid he does. I have to give him his due for restoring Balnagowan, but just as his money can't buy him a British passport, it can't buy him a place in the Scottish aristocracy.

Well if he was a medieval lord it probably would have.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Well if he was a medieval lord it probably would have.

if he lived in medieval times, surely one of Clan Ross had alredy chopped his head off for this affront towards the Clan - I seriously doubt he would have been deemed noble enough for a proper challenge, so they would simply caught him and killed him for what they must see as the pretense to a Lairdship that is not his to hold. Okay, he could have applied to HM or HRH THe Duke of Rothesay to grant him his own Coat of Arms but even that does not give him the right to a Lairdship.

I once attended a dinner at Brodie Castle and had the opportunity to talk to The Brodie of Brodie and having met that gentleman and learned about his opinions when it comes to Scottish history etc., I have a fair idea what he would have felt in such a situation - and Brodie really was a mild-mannered gentleman. I just found his obituary and that he died in 2003.

[ysbel]

No doubt, Jo, but those were violent times and often who had the most might (not the most justice) ended up owning the castle on the hill.

The medieval ages were full of wannabee that tried to up their status in paying tournaments and some of them did quite well, bought the castle and married the maiden. It was the time of mercenaries like our good Sir Edward Hawkins who basically got his knighthood being a soldier for hire and got some castles in Italy as payment. The guardian of Henry III was quite a nobody that rose in the hierarchy because of his success on the tournament field.

So I would say that al-Fayed's coup might have gone over quite better in the Middle Ages with the exception of his being muslim.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by ysbel

N
So I would say that al-Fayed's coup might have gone over quite better in the Middle Ages with the exception of his being muslim.

Bankers as princes of the Holy Roman Empire or in Italy were much later, say renaissance. Medici, Fugger etc. And even back then in Scotland it was still a question of being a knight or not - not a question of money. He could have bought a house in Edinburgh and built a mansion back then with money from trading but I doubt he could have laid claim to a castle in the Northern highlands.

[ysbel]

I thought al-Fayed started as an arms dealer not a banker.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I thought al-Fayed started as an arms dealer not a banker.

In the times we talk about (medieval) arms dealers were the same as bankers because princes needed the money they loaned to buy arms. Feed the soldiers they could most of the time as the conquered land fed them, but arms needed to be bought.

My point mainly is that to run an estate successfully during these times you needed a kind of training that only noble woman or abbots had. Money was not enough as there was nothing to buy. It was the art of running a large estate that counted, taught from a lady mother to her noble daughter. The male job was to protect the estate, the female job was to run the every day life. That was one reason why a lord/laird could not marry the peasant girl he fell in love with as she wouldn't have been able to manage his estates and make the people survive those gruesome years (a question of respect as well).

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

In the times we talk about (medieval) arms dealers were the same as bankers because princes needed the money they loaned to buy arms. Feed the soldiers they could most of the time as the conquered land fed them, but arms needed to be bought.

My point mainly is that to run an estate successfully during these times you needed a kind of training that only noble woman or abbots had. Money was not enough as there was nothing to buy. It was the art of running a large estate that counted, taught from a lady mother to her noble daughter. The male job was to protect the estate, the female job was to run the every day life. That was one reason why a lord/laird could not marry the peasant girl he fell in love with as she wouldn't have been able to manage his estates and make the people survive those gruesome years (a question of respect as well).

Then he could have just captured a noble bride as spoils of war as the Sforzas of Milan did.

I must say I'm quite impressed with the diligence with which you defend your class from the barbarians cracking at the gates but I just don't think the medieval gates were locked that tightly shut as we like to think.

[Elspeth]

Are there any examples in Scottish history of a person becoming clan chief by virtue of taking possession of the clan chief's ancestral home?

[ghost_night554]

Is next week going to continue with them talking about the mystery of the blood results of Henri Paul? I know his parents will be there on Monday...anyone else who can possibly explain the weird results (how close they are, how they can still be too high etc)

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by ghost_night554

Is next week going to continue with them talking about the mystery of the blood results of Henri Paul? I know his parents will be there on Monday...anyone else who can possibly explain the weird results (how close they are, how they can still be too high etc)

To summarize simply the blood results.

The blood tests and DNA testing show that scientifically Henri Paul had a high blood alcohol level and it was his blood tested as there was a positive DNA match with his mother. Now the legal team representing his parents need to try and discredit this scientific testing and put as much doubt as possible in the jurors' minds as whether or not it was accurate.

This is being done with the blood samples taken on August 31st from his chest cavity, the labelling of the samples was not done satisfactorily so there's a possibility here for the lawyers representing al Fayed and Henri Paul's parents to plant seeds of doubt in the jurors' minds. And the lawyers have spent hours on presenting this evidence with al Fayed hiring his own forensic experts to testify.

But other blood samples were taken from Henri Paul's body from his femoral artery on Sept 4th, with these samples ( again DNA matched with Mme Paul) there was no problem with the labelling or the 'chain of custody' and the results here are not being questioned by the al Fayed team ( this includes the Paul lawyers) the results are not being questioned as there's nothing there that can be disputed. So these are the results the lawyer for the Metropolitan police keeps summarizing with after the hours of testimony discrediting the Aug 31st test results. Both the Aug 31st and Sept 4th results show high levels of alcohol and are a DNA match with Mme Paul.

The other thing that is being questioned in the carbon monoxide levels in the blood samples.
The samples taken on Aug 31st show a high level of carbon monoxide in the blood. The conspiracy theorists say that's because the blood was not that of Henri Paul's but of a suicide victim at the morgue at the time. But the sample was DNA matched to Henri Paul, also while there were other bodies at the morgue waiting to be autopsied the only autopsy carried out on the Sunday Aug 31st was Henri Paul's, no other samples were taken from other bodies.

But the blood sample taken on Sept 4th shows carbon monoxide levels at the normal level for someone who was a heavy smoker, which Henri Paul was as he smoked unfiltered cigarellos.

Why the carbon monoxide levels were high in the Aug 31st test cannot be explained scientifically, the forensic scientists have tried to come up with an explanation, but there is no biological reason for it, was the testimony. Therefore a probability is that the reading itself was a false one.

The lawyers for Henri Paul need to try and get the jurors to discount the blood result as they show that he had high levels of alcohol in his blood. Since science has established this fact the lawyers have to try and bring in doubt by attacking the way the Aug 31st blood results were collected. They are not addressing the Sept 4th results as there's nothing for them to discredit, but the fact is Henri Paul had high concentrations of alcohol and DNA has proved it was his blood tested. ( as well as a sample of his liver)

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

To summarize simply the blood results.

Thank you for that useful summary, Charlotte. I'd missed the fact that the samples taken on 4th September showed a carbon dioxide (I thought it was monoxide though; that's what the transcript says Professor Oliver was talking about) level within normal limits for a heavy smoker.

It's certainly a shame that histology testing wasn't carried out on that liver sample.

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

Thank you for that useful summary, Charlotte. I'd missed the fact that the samples taken on 4th September showed a carbon dioxide (I thought it was monoxide though; that's what the transcript says Professor Oliver was talking about) level within normal limits for a heavy smoker.

It's certainly a shame that histology testing wasn't carried out on that liver sample.

Sorry it was carbon monoxide ( science was never a strong subject with me! I've corrected my original post) The testimony that the Sept 4th levels were withing normal levels was in Professor Forrest's testimony, he isn't the al Fayed expert. He along with the 2 al Fayed experts Prof Johnston and Prof Oliver, reviewed the autopsy and tests.